winterdd Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 Is it just me or should this screenshot, from a previous designer, be dimensioned from the stud walls not the brick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwdozier Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 I concur. Just had this conversation from a 'young' architect not long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterdd Posted December 12, 2021 Author Share Posted December 12, 2021 9 minutes ago, rwdozier said: I concur. Just had this conversation from a 'young' architect not long ago. It makes no sense to dimension this way for sure. I am not one to call out others for mistakes but damn, the brick isn't even scaled evenly so how can a framer lay this out? I was hired by the homeowner to modify it, which was never built, and it is going to make my job harder but I have my secrets to get it done. From the sheets I have it is just the floor plan and 4 elevations so I am thinking it wasn't a buildable set in the first place. Again, i'm just saying, not cutting anyone down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwdozier Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 2 minutes ago, ChiefUserBigRob said: It makes no sense to dimension this way for sure. Ha! I almost typed that very same sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenGreene Posted December 13, 2021 Share Posted December 13, 2021 4 hours ago, ChiefUserBigRob said: It makes no sense to dimension this way for sure. I am not one to call out others for mistakes but damn, the brick isn't even scaled evenly so how can a framer lay this out? I was hired by the homeowner to modify it, which was never built, and it is going to make my job harder but I have my secrets to get it done. From the sheets I have it is just the floor plan and 4 elevations so I am thinking it wasn't a buildable set in the first place. Again, i'm just saying, not cutting anyone down. it IS a giant PITA for the framers. i never do this and though there may be, i can't imagine a situation where one might need too. many years ago, we built numerous projects designed by, ironically, an architect from Alabama who always dimensioned from the brick. it must be something they teach at Auburn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug_N Posted December 13, 2021 Share Posted December 13, 2021 Dimensioning from the brick is common in as built drawings, but rare in new design drawings. A site plan may have dimensioning from the brick layer to illustrate set back from lot lines though. So, it all depends on what you are trying to illustrate, and who the audience is. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joey_martin Posted December 13, 2021 Share Posted December 13, 2021 Is there an attached foundation plan? If not, I worked in an office (yeeeeeears ago) that used this method so that the foundation guys could do the foundation. We would eventually go back and include the foundation plan, but we would leave the dims like this on the floor plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHCanada2 Posted December 13, 2021 Share Posted December 13, 2021 I always wonder how one can dimension to stud, but then have compliance to setbacks. I have seen tons on plot plans on new builds which indicate distances to PL off of the framing member. But then I have seen surveyors go to the outside wall finish. Our bylaw has a clause for what is allowable in the setback, but nowhere does it say finishing components It makes no sense to me, in theory the City approves the first new build submttal with a building framing/foundation at the setback, but then once a surveyor comes along, is it now non compliant? and here, if you are selling a house you need to get a surveyors report, take it to city hall and have them stamp it for compliance. sometimes I have seen the surveyor call out the presumed depth of finish. I'm thinking no one cares about the inch, but really as people start adding rainscreens, external insulation, or brick, 4" on a 4' setback exceeds the allowable tolerance here (which i believe is 4%) so back to your question, maybe the City required it and instead of creating two sets of dimensioned plans, he only got so far and had only created one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterdd Posted December 13, 2021 Author Share Posted December 13, 2021 3 hours ago, joey_martin said: Is there an attached foundation plan? If not, I worked in an office (yeeeeeears ago) that used this method so that the foundation guys could do the foundation. We would eventually go back and include the foundation plan, but we would leave the dims like this on the floor plan. Unless the homeowner has other sheets saved all I have is the elevations and floorplan. BUT, the elevations do not even have story pole dims nor material callouts. Very generic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joey_martin Posted December 13, 2021 Share Posted December 13, 2021 43 minutes ago, ChiefUserBigRob said: Very generic. I am working on a remodel right now that the homeowner said they had the original plans for. I kid you not...pencil sketches on a 4 sheets of 8.5 x 11 graph paper. The house is about 20 years old, and that's what it was built from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterdd Posted December 13, 2021 Author Share Posted December 13, 2021 2 hours ago, joey_martin said: I am working on a remodel right now that the homeowner said they had the original plans for. I kid you not...pencil sketches on a 4 sheets of 8.5 x 11 graph paper. The house is about 20 years old, and that's what it was built from. Holy cow, that would never fly around here. They are strict! Everything down to a single detached garage or pole barn has to be engineer stamped. Yet an hour from here in my hometown I just finished a 4k Sq Foot home that doesn't have to be stamped. Kind of wish it was though, I like engineer's being liable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich_Winsor Posted December 14, 2021 Share Posted December 14, 2021 12 hours ago, joey_martin said: I am working on a remodel right now that the homeowner said they had the original plans for. I kid you not...pencil sketches on a 4 sheets of 8.5 x 11 graph paper. The house is about 20 years old, and that's what it was built from. Sounds like you got the deluxe plan set Joey. Pretty sure I posted this before, but when I got my little slice of heaven here the sweet lady who owned the property had started a complete redo of the place without getting any permits. The interior was gutted and there was no sign of any plans. When I asked if there were any plans she said "oh yes" and gave me this page (with a straight face). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael_Gia Posted December 15, 2021 Share Posted December 15, 2021 You guys do things funny. It’s not that he’s dimensioning the brick. If you read the whole plan then you should see a note that says the exterior surface of all exterior walls are deemed to be inline with the exterior surface of the foundation walls. This is for structural reasons. Also in this method (the correct method) all bearing walls are dimensioned from the exterior wall surface to the center of all bearing walls, beams and posts. Architects are not concerned about simplifying the math for framers. They’re concerned about proper construction. Dimensioning to lumber is careless design. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joey_martin Posted December 15, 2021 Share Posted December 15, 2021 10 hours ago, Michael_Gia said: Dimensioning to lumber is careless design. That statement is ridiculous, come on man, be better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug_N Posted December 15, 2021 Share Posted December 15, 2021 13 hours ago, Michael_Gia said: You guys do things funny. It’s not that he’s dimensioning the brick. If you read the whole plan then you should see a note that says the exterior surface of all exterior walls are deemed to be inline with the exterior surface of the foundation walls. This is for structural reasons. Also in this method (the correct method) all bearing walls are dimensioned from the exterior wall surface to the center of all bearing walls, beams and posts. Architects are not concerned about simplifying the math for framers. They’re concerned about proper construction. Dimensioning to lumber is careless design. I disagree with your closing assertion. dimensioning to framing is a way of ensuring that the designer's intent is carried out. A house framer is more than likely not the contractor that will be doing drywall, or masonry. Where the framing goes is integral to executing the design as required by the architect/designer. Sure you can rely on the trades to figure out what those dimensions should be, but as a careful designer I usually include a framing plan and a finished room size plan. It significantly reduces the finger pointing at a later date when reviewing as built conditions during the construction process. Anyhow, that is my opinion on the matter. I am sure that many of you as design colleagues have different opinions, and that is one of the things that makes this forum worth while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_Canada Posted December 15, 2021 Share Posted December 15, 2021 14 hours ago, Michael_Gia said: Dimensioning to lumber is careless design. I would suggest that is only the case where there is an alternate structural component not taken into consideration by the design. For instance here there are rules for masonry finishes which are not supported by the foundation. I do not see how it could be careless to follow those rules. In general here engineers care about how it gets built, and here if the engineer says it is OK, that is the last word. And pretty much anything can be engineered outside if the foundation wall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug_N Posted December 15, 2021 Share Posted December 15, 2021 What I am suggesting here in this thread, is that one of the key design components is the space created by walls. What the engineer decides about structure is to certify the structural integrity of the building, but the designer's responsibility is for the function of the space. Not specifying where the dimensions terminate can result in a misplaced wall, and if there is an error in reading the termination of walls, that error can pretty quickly stack up to a significant error in the placement of a wall. My posts where about how to be clear about what the dimensions are communicating, and why there should be dimensions to exterior surfaces (set back rules), to framing and for finished surfaces. There is not just one rule! The designer has to indicate what the dimensions are saying so there isn't ambiguity. In the case of an engineer changing a wall location for structural reasons, the engineer should have a discussion with the designer who should review the reasons for the change and make design accommodations. It isn't (or shouldn't be) up to the structural engineer to design the functional spaces. I might be wrong, but it seems that the focus of this thread has gone off the tracks about what the focus of the original post was about. That question was where should dimensions terminate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael_Gia Posted December 16, 2021 Share Posted December 16, 2021 8 hours ago, Doug_N said: I might be wrong, but it seems that the focus of this thread has gone off the tracks about what the focus of the original post was about. That question was where should dimensions terminate? Well, I did respond to the original post, and that was to correct OP and everyone else that there was nothing wrong with the dimensioning approach in the image. The image shows a very common way to dimension. It shows dimensioning to the brick it doesn’t mean it’s measuring from a brick veneer but to the outside of a foundation. Of course I had to add in my very condescending tone with the rest of my comment but that’s just me…lol. There is more than one way to skin a cat, of course. You guys obviously deal with carpenters who can’t figure out how to place a 2x4 on a floor from a center line which I find laughable. You’re all harping about your precious design considerations, meanwhile you open yourselves up for a very dangerous situation where a support wall could be off-center. Isn’t that more important than Mrs. Jones getting her pantry at precisely 24” clear interior to accommodate her new filter queen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug_N Posted December 16, 2021 Share Posted December 16, 2021 20 minutes ago, Michael_Gia said: You’re all harping about your precious design considerations, meanwhile you open yourselves up for a very dangerous situation where a support wall could be off-center. Isn’t that more important than Mrs. Jones getting her pantry at precisely 24” clear interior to accommodate her new filter queen? No ;-) lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHCanada2 Posted December 16, 2021 Share Posted December 16, 2021 16 hours ago, Michael_Gia said: open yourselves up for a very dangerous situation where a support wall could be off-center. you piqued my interest. I do not see how they relate How would this occur if you frame on the outside of the foundation wall as opposed to the brick on the foundation wall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now